Anonymous wrote:Does anyone care that his family sold his likeness to Mercedes for a car commercial?

They will only care if he looks angry while driving the car.

Reminds me of the Arthur Ashe monument in Richmond. It's also ugly. People joke that it looks like he's going to beat the children with his racket.

Does anyone care that his family sold his likeness to Mercedes for a car commercial?

"all monuments in the area AREN'T the greatest"

correction

black guy here. i dont see anything wrong with the memorial. if there is something to bitch about is that it took forever to finally get finished (there were a lot of delays and setbacks).

i guess he looks angry and the whole stone thing is off putting but i enjoy the quotes all throughout and there is a nice gift store with good books on MLK to pick up for kids and adults.

in order for me to think that race has anything to do with why its "ugly", i would need to see evidence of nothing but glowing praise and/or dislike for other monuments in dc. all the monuments in the area are the greatest and i wouldnt attribute any shortcomings of the MLK memorial to race.

i mean if anything the monument wouldnt be up if it was race. that or it would be completely away from all the other monuments away from the mall. i can see that being a race/disrespect but nothing else really.

i can be convinced otherwise i guess

I'm white and been there several time. I always thought his face looked strong and proud...and I always found the memorial to be a proud and beautiful one.
I did not think of him as looking angry...

Anonymous wrote: The best, though, is Teddy Roosevelt. I think he would have loved it. Larger than life, presiding over a wilderness, removed from the crowd...

That monument reminds me of the memorials and monuments I saw in the former USSR. Even more so when the fountains aren't running and all of the pools are empty.

Anonymous wrote:those of you who don't like it - have you been to it since it was completed, or just saw it on TV and pics? I thought it was bad when I walked by last year while it was still under construction, and I didn't like it from seeing it on TV. But once I was actually there, I thought it was very nice.

I agree. I was pleasantly surprised at how beautiful the monument was in person. Very modern.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a black woman, I hate it. Hate it, hate it, hate it.

MLK was about non-violence and peace. His statue looks angry and intolerant.

I understand and respect your point of view. However, I also think that MLK's image has been sanitized and softened over the past 40 years. A younger generation is taught that he was a "dreamer". He was actually a warrior for justice, not just a dreamer for justice. He defiantly challenged the status quo of segregation and discrimination that was deeply embedded in our country. Many people think that his fight is over. I think he would be defiant and yes, very angry today as he looked out over DC. Not just in terms of the instituitional racism that still exists today, but also the poverty and inequality that exists for poor people of all races. He was planning a Poor People's Campaign that would have essentially shut down DC when he was assassinated. I think he was a far more complex figure than the image we have of him today. I like the memorial. Give it another look.

I agree that MLK was defiant in the face of opposition, but he was not militant. He was not a "Black Power" sort of freedom fighter and he did not seek to gain rights through violence. I also don't like that his arms are crossed because it makes him looks obstinate. His memorial would be more fitting to the likes of Malcolm X.

My favorite memorial is Iwo Jima. I was absolutely fascinated by it as a kid and it sparked an interest in learning about WWII that I still have today, 40 years later. I know that artistically it is probably considered "kitsch" or just plain bad, but I still love to see it occasionally.

I agree that MLK looks angry and oppressive in that statue. And I hated the outsourcing to China.

But the WWII memorial has set a VERY high bar for Worst Memorial on the Mall. That thing is godawful, tells us nothing, evokes nothing. Just an exercise in how much granite can we use. I also use the term "soviet" when describing it.

The FDR is one of my favorites, though I know that the man himself wouldn't agree with me (too much, too big, wheelchair as PP mentioned). It tells us so much about the era and his principles, and has an excellent narrative flow for something as static as a granite memorial. It includes his wife, who was a major influence on an important part of our history. And it's pleasant.

The best, though, is Teddy Roosevelt. I think he would have loved it. Larger than life, presiding over a wilderness, removed from the crowd...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think anyone created a bad memorial due to his race??? Someone probably just designed it poorly..

Maybe....but the point is, he is black and the memorial is bad. Can you think of another (white) memorial that looks bad and contrary to what that person stood for?

I can think of a couple of memorials that people did not like at first. People really hated the Vietnam War Memorial when it came out (but most love it now). People really hated the FDR Memorial (and many still do).

Anonymous wrote:I think the sculptor was African American. That said, I agree the memorial is ugly - reminds me of statues I've seen in developing countries of their respective totalitarian head of state.

Wrong. He was carved by a Chinese artist in China. Also, his family likes it. And, the quote is going to be redone, thanks to Maya Angelou protest.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/1016/MLK-Memorial-From-China-with-love

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the sculptor was African American. That said, I agree the memorial is ugly - reminds me of statues I've seen in developing countries of their respective totalitarian head of state.

Exactly! The sculpture just seems like such a poor representation of the Civil Rights Movement. King had a complicated relationship with his own fame and his role as a figurehead for the movement. Clearly he sometimes embraced his role at "Da Lawd," but I think he did fundamentally see the Movement as the work of the people, which is not represented in the sculpture.

IIRC the sculptor is Chinese.

Anonymous wrote:As a black woman, I hate it. Hate it, hate it, hate it.

MLK was about non-violence and peace. His statue looks angry and intolerant.

I understand and respect your point of view. However, I also think that MLK's image has been sanitized and softened over the past 40 years. A younger generation is taught that he was a "dreamer". He was actually a warrior for justice, not just a dreamer for justice. He defiantly challenged the status quo of segregation and discrimination that was deeply embedded in our country. Many people think that his fight is over. I think he would be defiant and yes, very angry today as he looked out over DC. Not just in terms of the instituitional racism that still exists today, but also the poverty and inequality that exists for poor people of all races. He was planning a Poor People's Campaign that would have essentially shut down DC when he was assassinated. I think he was a far more complex figure than the image we have of him today. I like the memorial. Give it another look.